SMALLFOOT (2018)

Smallfoot is WAG's (Warner Animation Group) second attempt at competing with Pixar and Dreamworks in something that doesn't revolve around the LEGO franchise. While it certainly has some reasonable animation and a great premise, it finds itself getting bogged down by its own big ideas.

The premise of the film is an interesting one; for anyone that has seen the history channel or animal planet, they will know that there are many groups that are out searching for the mythical Bigfoot. This movie turns that idea on its head by showing the other side of the equation with a yeti community that also believes humans to be a myth, apart from a small section that believes it's a conspiracy and go out in search of the elusive "Smallfoot". There are certainly similarities to Monsters Inc. in the yeti communities fear of human but otherwise remains an intriguing notion.

Of course, you can tell in the trailer and movie poster that the two species come across one another and the plot chugs along, using the language barrier to successfully elicit a few laughs. With the yetis casual conversation sounding (and looking?) like aggressive roars to the humans and the humans talking sounding like high pitched squeaking to the yeti, it proposes an interesting idea of the intelligence of creatures that converse at frequencies that we cannot hear. But I'm thinking far too much for a children's animated film.

The plot takes an unusual turn, looking at the rules of those in power being used to keep control of the masses using fear and superstition, dispelling any movement towards science or facts. Bringing governmental conspiracies, and the idea that nearly humans are angry beings that will kill and torture animals...well, those are some pretty heavy topics to delve into. And to be honest, while it will likely go over the kid's heads, they don't go into it deep enough to really keep the engagement of the parents and other older viewers.

Unique plot points aren't all that Smallfoot tries to throw at you. It also is a bit of a pseudo-musical, with several large musical numbers, that are well done, but ultimately forgettable. Nothing that will be stuck in the children's head like "Let It Go", but the pieces sounded good. That is to say that they did stick out like a sore thumb and felt forced into the movie for the sake of trying to sell a soundtrack. But having actual musicians performing the songs was welcome, and provided a variety of sounds, most notably Common's rap track "Let It Lie". Yes, I said rap. 

How was the cast? Well there are a number of huge names in that cast list, but looking at the names of the characters that they played, I was largely at a loss as to which characters they were; and that tells you a lot. Migo, Percy, Meechee and The Stonekeeper were the only ones whose names I could remember, mainly because they were rather forgettable characters. It doesn't matter how different and recognisable they are in appearance if their personality is non-existent. In fact, stand-out cast members came in the form of Common's Stonekeeper, and Danny DeVito's Dorgle (whose minor role was really the most interesting character arc).

Channing Tatum's Migo was likeable, but a very flip-flopping personality of a character, effectively following what the last person has told him to "right", which in itself goes against everything that the movie is trying to tell us in its "question everything" ideals. The human in the film comes in the form of James Corden's Percy, and he is as close to his real-life personality as possible, even to the point of doing his own extensive karaoke song in the movie. If you like James Corden, you will enjoy his character, if not, then you may find yourself taking issue with his derogative Steve Irwin/David Attenborough-influenced character.

The comedy is inconsistent, and mostly follows the rule of thumb of "kids love physical comedy" and is mostly based on the comedy styling of Wile E Coyote, with multiple over-the-top painful situations jammed into a few minutes, before forgetting it, and switching to "lost in translation" language barrier antics, before the climax of the film which features lightly-coloured fast-paced action sequences.

The film starts out with a strong premise, but it loses steam as it progresses. While the animation is good, and the colour scheme does well with the environment it was given, it still fails to create an eye-catching or memorable location. An interesting idea, that will keep the 6-10 age range entertained, but leave the older children and adults checking their watches at the halfway point. Not great, but good.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8069

SUPER TROOPERS 2 (2018)

Super Troopers 2. Considering the original Super Troopers film debuted back in 2001, it's fair to say that this is a money grab. If there had been sufficient demand or plans for a sequel to come out, it wouldn't have taken 17 years to do so. But it managed to raise 2 million dollars seed money in a crowdfunding campaign in 24 hours, so the film exists. Only one question remains; is it any good?

Despite Super Troopers coming out in 2001, it was a decidedly 90's comedy. A lot of quirky toilet humour that straddles the line between acceptable and unacceptable, shot in a brown faded colour grade to match their outfits. Super Troopers 2 follows along that same vein. It's safe to say that if you were a fan of the first film, you will be a fan of the sequel.

The original crew are all back, and look like they have barely aged at all. And neither has the humour. You will find callbacks to previous skits that were done in the original, and the same themes of hazing the rookie, and trying to shut out Farva, come into play. The movie does have a new location on the Canadian/US border with some disagreements on where the border lies, which leads to the expected hostilities between the US and Canadian forces. So while much of the material is regurgitated from the first film, it isn't the same, it has a twist of being done from a different cultural standpoint. The comedy isn't completely copied over though, and there are a fair few new bits and gags that are fresh and elicit a few laughs.

Unlike the first film that felt like a collection of comedy skits with some plot thrown in at the end, Super Troopers 2 has a plot from start to finish. And while it is a weak and highly coincidental plot, it is a plot nonetheless and gives the movie a direction, which was lacking in its predecessor. 

The franchise (is two films enough to call it a franchise?) has always been over the top, and with that, it does mean the comedy is a bit hit-and-miss depending on where you draw the line for acceptable crassness and intelligence in comedy. With a slow build-up to the film and some rather long extended skits, there are certainly some lulls in the film where one may lose interest if that particular skit isn't appealing to the viewer.

Shot in the same way as the first film, with much the same comedy, this again is like a 90's comedy and has a nostalgic appeal to it despite being a recent film. It harks back to the times of Dumb and Dumber, The Big Lebowski, and Cool Runnings. the world's view on what comedy is appealing has changed over the last 18 years undoubtedly, but the nostalgia still keeps that engagement level up. 

Is it a brilliant, fresh, new comedy that will keep you laughing the whole way through? Not in the slightest. Does it successfully reinvigorate the old jokes with Canadian stereotypes? Hit-and-miss, but mostly so. Is it predictable? Incredibly so, but nostalgia makes it feel comfortable. Will you enjoy it? If you liked the first one, you will like this one ( I can't guarantee the same can be said for the planned Super Troopers 3 though).

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8064

A SIMPLE FAVOUR (2018)

A Simple Favour (or A Simple Favor, as it's known to the American audiences) is an intriguing murder mystery with a female protagonist. If hadn't seen any of the trailers and didn't know this was a female-centric plot, the opening credits remove any sense of doubt that this would be the case. It was in the first few minutes of this film that I came to realise that most female-oriented movies seem to come with its own standard music style (usually with the presence of some upbeat exotic salsa music). As a male, it's not my place to say whether starting female-centric movies with the same style of music each time is a good thing. It might be something that draws the viewers into the story, but as a male, it feels like a lazy choice was made.

But that is only the opening credits. There is just short of 120 minutes of run-time in this film with a surprisingly minimal cast. Apart from Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick, and Henry Golding, all other characters have minimal involvement. This puts a lot of pressure on the acting chops of these three actors/actresses. Blake Lively does brilliantly as Emily Nelson, a secretive, sultry, seductive PR director with a hidden past. Her performance is authentic, and really gives you a feeling of uncertainty and excitement as you tread the line of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. 

Anna Kendrick's Stephanie Smothers is- as her name depicts -a smothering mother; over-the-top, always happy to help, and always there. If you know your memes, Kendrick's performance is a spot-on adaptation of Laina Morris' "Overly Attached Girlfriend". While her sudden switch from goody-two-shoes mother to heavy drinking crime detective was a little bit extreme, it certainly fits in with how you would expect a lonely person to cling to a friend. 

The weak aspect of the acting threesome comes from Henry Golding's portrayal of Sean Nelson, Emily's husband. Perhaps written in such a way to ensure focus is kept on the leading ladies, Nelson's performance was weak and lacked any real emotion to garner empathy from the audience. His character is rather flat and is painted as a womanizer who can't keep his d*** in his pants. This is Emily & Stephanie show, and Sean is just along for the ride.

One of the aspects that were surprisingly enjoyable were the outfits. Being a PR person for a fashion outfit, Lively was always adorned in a selection of highly fashionable and often revealing outfits (a suit jacket and tie-piece are certainly not practical, but certainly paints the image of a confident fashionable woman. It added an extra layer of aesthetics to an otherwise repetitive set of environments. Even as a male, it added a flourish that -while the fashion aspect went over my head- still looked very appealing. 

The plot and storyline themselves are very difficult to discuss without spoiling the movie. The film follows Stephanie in her quest to make a friend of Emily, who after sharing some secrets and becoming besties, disappears. Kendrick then becomes a detective of sorts, using some of the skills she learned from Emily to get past barriers that would have previously stopped her in her tracks. It presents an interesting murder mystery that turns into a game of cat-and-mouse, working towards a finale of back-stabbing and deception. The many layers of deceit do make the movie slightly less predictable. Certain points are definitely easy to pick up, but determining how it will end is difficult to predict when there are so many directions that it could potentially go. 

This creates a reasonably engaging film for the viewer, though that isn't to say it is perfect. The pacing isn't always consistent; there are a few lulls throughout the film, and I did find myself checking my watch on a couple of occasions. This probably could have been compacted down a little bit more into a 90-minute film, which would have added a sense of urgency to it all. The format of the film as well, including Stephanie's role as a vlogger, while necessary, is one of the reasons why the film does tend to slow down.

An intriguing film overall. It combines action and crime mysteries, but is a slow-builder in terms of being a "thriller"; it leaves enough plot threads running throughout the film that while you don't have to think hard for it to make sense, as a viewer you want to know how it ends.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8063